To come back to the gambit move 10.b4

[Event "11. DFMM - Gruppe LK-22/B04"]
[Site "BdF-Schachserver"]
[Date "2015.09.29"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chilla, Jan Eric"]
[Black "Reichert, Thomas"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2176"]
[BlackElo "2123"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "2015.10.15"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. dxc5 d4 7. Na4 Bxc5 8.
Nxc5 Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qxc5 10. b4 Nxb4 11. Rc1 Qd6 12. e3 dxe3 13. Bc3 Qxd1+ 14.
Kxd1 Nxa2 15. Bxg7 Nxc1 16. Kxc1 Bd7 17. fxe3 Rc8+ 18. Kd2 f6 19. Bxh8 Kf7 20.
Bd3 Ne7 21. Rb1 b6 22. Ra1 a5 23. Ne5+ fxe5 24. Bxe5 Rc5 25. Bd4 Rh5 26. h3 Rg5
27. Rf1+ Ke8 28. Rf2 b5 29. Bxh7 a4 30. Bd3 b4 31. Bc4 Nc6 32. h4 Rg4 33. Bf7+
Ke7 34. Bh5 Nxd4 35. Bxg4 Nb3+ 36. Kc2 Bxg4 37. Rf4 Be6 38. Rxb4 Na5 39. Kc3 a3
40. Ra4 Nc4 41. e4 Nd6 42. e5 Nf5 43. Rxa3 Nxh4 44. g4 Nf3 45. Ra7+ Bd7 46.
Rxd7+ Kxd7 {Draw agreed} 1/2-1/2

proustiskeen wrote on 03/12/13 at 16:19:58:


Very good review!

I bought the book. It is excellent. The 9Bg5 c4!? lines opened up a new world of chess opening interpretation, for me. It remains a tactical, strategical challenge.

The original charm of the Tarrash defense for me was black's IQP compensation. Back when Spassky played the Tarrash against Petrosian, this was new territory for both myself and my opponents. Play became increasingly worked out for both sides. Kasparov kept the Tarrash in the spotlight for a time.

I'm glad the Tarrash remains unrefuted. Perhaps the practical upshot of existing analysis is the knowledge that one is playing a line that has not been refuted.

What happens if Black plays 18. ... Be2 instead of h5 as played in the Bucek-Monacell game?

In the Akobian game Black played quickly ...Re8-Re7 to free his bishop. What is the antidote to that?

But really, if this line is indeed quite dangerous it is amazing news for White who can have something to play against the Tarrasch and fight for the edge withouting having to remember tons and tons of theory!

I just saw this correspondence Tarrasch game and my impression is that white may have a small but steady advantage after 14.Qb3
at least it looks like an underrated line

proustiskeen wrote on 03/13/13 at 15:39:52:


What is a wise corporate strategy is not up to me to decide. What I do know is that the GM series is not aimed at club players, according to the text in the books. "This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot benefit from them".

Anyway, I really like that you are reviewing books and that you present detailed criticism. I just wanted to point out that reviewing the GM series under the premise that they should be for club players may not be totally fair. This does not mean that a club player cannot review them 

Fling - your point is well taken, but given that most chess players are under 2000, it would seem that a wise corporate strategy would be to sell them books that are useful to them.  Of course, the main point is selling the books, and QC seems to be doing fairly well at that, so I might be wrong.

Ametanoitos - thank you for your response.  I'm glad you find the review fair and well considered.  Maybe you can get Jacob to put me on the QC reviewers list!  Again, I think that your response makes sense, but I still wonder: how useful is it for an amateur player to spend that much time on a position (after the exchange sac) that will probably never show up in their OTB games?

I'll be waiting for your books on the French and I'll review them too.

I bought the book. I haven't read much in it yet, but so far it is very good. I used it in a corr game and got a better position only to input the wrong move and then had to fight for a draw... But the analysis is excellent.

Anyway, I think it is unfair to judge a book with a title Grandmaster Repertoire in how well it is written for a club player, especially under 2000 (I belong to this group, btw). The explanations I have felt are clear enough for me, but I don't really expect to have a full repertoire that I can follow, because of the title! I won't remember all the analysis, of course, but I never expected that to begin with.

about 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6, GM10 gives 5...a6 which gives more flexibility compared to 5...Nc6
for example 5...a6 6.a3 (the main line after Nc6 but not so good here) dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Ba2 Bb7 9.O-O Nbd7! (which isn't possible with Nc6 played)
John Cox also recommends an early a6 against e3 in his anti-Benoni chapter of 'Dealing with d4 deviations' (but I guess 5...Nc6 is perfectly playable)

PANFR wrote on 10/03/12 at 20:56:24:


The 23.Rd2 line you mention was discussed here at the foroum and i provided 3 (if i remember correctly) ways to play for Black. Two of them are feaured in the Yearbook survey. Both Watson and Schandorff give the same game as the way forward for White, which is not at all a bad practical suggestion, but theoretically it gives no worries for Black. Actually both of these authors admit the same thing!

Problems for Black in the 9.Bg5 c4 mainline as well.
Akobian failed to solve his opening problems in the old 12...Qa5 variation when he played it against Mamedyarov, while Aagard had a hard time in the suggested 12...h6 variation:


Actually he deviated from the book line (22...g6). I believe the reason is 23.Rd2 (not mentioned in the book) Rd8 24.Kf1, intending Ke1 and Bf1, when Black's position is rather unpleasant. Actually 23.Kf1 Rd8 24.Rd2 ends up to the same thing.

PANFR wrote on 05/12/12 at 14:38:38:


I assume you mean 12...Bb6. I still think I prefer White after 13.b4 Bf5 14.Bb2 f6 15 Rfd1 and perhaps Qb3 and Nd4, but at least the position remains fairly complicated.

Some unrelated comment. 
On page 339 (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Bd2 Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb6 9.g3) a5 is given as an interesting attempt for Black. Only 10. Bg2 a4 is considered in the book but I think 10.Rc1 is a bit better for white. The idea is that after a4 11.Nxd5 exd5 12.Nc5 is possible (no need to play Nc1)

PANFR wrote on 05/11/12 at 12:43:46:


You are correct. I used the diagram given in the book but did not notice that Qd2 was played instead of Bd2.

Quote:


Again I must agree. I looked a the position more closely now. White is better but this may still be Black's best option after Nd4.

Nikos, I would not feel too bad about oversights in this book, which explores all sorts of new terrain in this defense. The value of this book is in its impetus to further exploration, which is just what is happening in this thread. Did you see the recent article in a NIC Yearbook upholding Black's cause in the ...c4  mainline, but without your proposed ...h6?

tp2205 wrote on 05/11/12 at 08:27:55:


16...Bxg2 loses to 17.Nxa8 Bxf1 18.Qb3!

14...Be6 is simply answered by 15.Bf4 (15...Bf6 16.Be5) and this IQP middlegame is precisely what Black tries to avoid in the Tarrasch.

On the book page 251, 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Bxd2 Bd5?! looks suspect due to 16.Nxb6 ab6 17.e4!
So 15...0-0 is probably the better move to play, when Black is only marginally worse.
Also, 15.Qxd2 0-0 16 b4!? looks interesting for white- and 16.b4 looks good after 16...Bd5, too.

I'm also not terribly fond of Black's position after 10.a3 Ne4 11.Qd3!? 0-0 12.Nc3 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 Be7 (as recommended in p.250) 14.Nd4. It seems to me that white has a comfortable advantage.
Maybe 13...Bb6 (aiming at a quick ...d4) could be a better try for Black?
In short, I don't believe too much in the value of the ...Ne4 sortie.

Amet

What is your email so that I can email my correspondence game in the Tarrasch to you? 

I would also be interested in your thoughts about the Ziegler Benoni DVD.

BabySnake wrote on 04/04/12 at 13:22:31:


I also analyzed this a bit but couldn't really find an advantage after (for example) 13... Nge7 14. e3 0-0 15. Be2 Rd8 16. 0-0 b5 17. Rc1 Nxd4 18. exd4 Bb7. There are alternatives of course but Black seems equal in all variations.

I'd try to continue with 12. g3 with the possible continuation 12... Nf6 13. Bf4 Qa6 (my engine likes this most) 14. Qxd4 and there may be a slight advantage for White. Or Black has chances to go wrong at least.

On p. 283 after 14. Qd2!, is a possibility to play 14...0-0, with the idea to displace either the bishop on e3 or knight on f3 by capturing later? i.e., 14. Qd2! 0-0 15. Qxb4 Nxb4 16. 0-0 (16. Bc5 Re8+) Re8 with the idea of either/and Nbd5 and Be6 to prevent isolation of the pawn after ...fxe6 and to avoid it by playing ...Rxe6 if exchange. If not, then ...Nbd5 to centralise the knights. Or if 14. Qd2! 0-0 15. 0-0 then 15...Qxd2 16. Nxd2, I think this transposes to the footnote after 15. Kxd2, if I see correctly. If 16. Bxd2 Re8 idea of ...Be6 without compromising pawn structure.

I just ordered this book last night.  I realize I'm late to the game but I'm looking forward to gettting it.  I could use a new defence to 1.d4, and it looks like there are enough new interpretations of the Tarrasch in this book to pose my under-2400 opponents a lot of problems if they aren't familiar with the new ideas.

Bresando wrote on 03/23/12 at 16:22:31:


Please, nothing impolite about that!

@Gilhrist: Probably he felt that the resulting position is an easy draw with chances for more if Bacrot decides to push for more. It is a pragmatic decision.

Excellent book Jacob and Nikos!  It has revitalized my interest in the Tarrasch.  I've started entering the repertoire into Chess Opening Wizard (formerly Bookup) as I read through it.  Is anyone else doing that as well and want to collaborate?

Bresando wrote on 03/23/12 at 16:22:31:


I didn't know Bagirov wrote a book on IQP and I can't find anything online. (maybe you meant Baburin's book)

there is only 17.Nxb3 in the book (page 142). We say that otherwise Black plays Ba4. This is what Delchev did. He got a really promising position at some point, but now it seems a bit better for White i think. Anyway, i think that this idea passed the first high-level GM test regerdless of the result!

The Tarrasch has already received GM tests in the Europ Ch in Bulgaria. In the first round Giri won with White with an interesting idea but it seems that objectively Black had no problems in the opening and now, at the moment i am writting these lines, Delchev (!) is playing with Black the critical variation after 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.a3 Ne4 with the pawn down against Bacrot!

(For the Giri game, check here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8013)

I do not think there is a list of the games, but I do not think all of the Grandmaster Repertoire series have game listings. The only one I remember that has one is GM7 Caro-Kann by Schandorff.

In the book?

J.H.Donner, De Tijd, 1 February 1958:

"EVANS - LARSEN
1. d2-d4 d7-d5 2. c2-c4 e7-e6 3. Nb1-c3 c7-c5
Larsen has done this more often. Before I have to play my match against him, I must look up why. Officially, the line is known to be unfavourable for Black."

Video review posted on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk35ZKf72VE&feature=g-all-u&context=G2a28d74FAAAA...

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/19/12 at 10:20:27:


Yes, my username refers to the renowned Australian wicketkeeper/batsman Adam Gilchrist who has the record for the second-fastest test century, amongst other accomplishments. Basically a super-grandmaster of cricket, comparable in talent to Aronian or Ivanchuk of chess. Or if you watch football, comparable in talent to Edwin Van der Sar or Petr Cech.

I am always a fan of Grandmaster Repertoire books, especially this one due to the originality and new analyses. It should rejuvenate the opening at higher levels. The Dutch seems to be played more often at GM level nowadays, so after this book has been published, why not the Tarrasch too?

I'd presumed its the Australian cricketer (who is certainly a legend in that context.).

Yes, there is a chesscafe review by Hansen and this one
http://www.schachversand.de/e/detail/buecher/11273.html in German. I am not aware of other revies. If anybody has seen one let me know please. 

Trandism is right, the situation in Greece make us all feel bad. I had planned a big presentation of the book in my city but we cancelled it because we didn't feel like doing it. We watched in the news yesterday the big support we got from all over europe from simple people on the streets. I felt like i wanted to say a big "thanks". Actions like that make us feel more human, because the last months we are getting constantly the feeling of being treated like animals.

And "Gilchrist is a Legend" (by the way what does your name mean?) has been a great supporter from the beginning. A big thanks to you also 

I received the book a bit over a week ago; I've only studied the section on 9.Bg5 c4 but I'm extremely impressed. 

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/18/12 at 22:05:21:


Both of those threads were started by me. 

I'd like to say that I'm very very happy that the book gets excellent reviews. I was very confident that this might be the case after checking the material that Nikos send me prior to the release, but to see it happening is an another thing. This success is one of the few pleasant things during these terrible times here in Greece.

Maybe soon more views means more grandmasters will play the Tarrasch?

Thinking only nanoseconds about the question my first thought is this: after 22.Rd2 (page 111 of the book) we write: "Rd2 blocks the King's principal path of g1-f1-e1-d2-c3. Moreover it leaves the 'b' file at Black's disposal: 22...Rb8 23.Rc1 Rb4 with counterplay".

The whole idea of delaying moving the Rf8 and playing first g6-Kg7 is that we don't know where this Rook belongs, so we imporve first the position of the King. So, after 22.Rc1 g6 23.Rd2 (your question) Black has the opportunity to play 23...Rb8. Am i correct? If 24.Bf1 Rb4 25.Rdc2 Ra4 26.Bxc4 Bx 27.Rx Rxa2 Black's King is close enough (Kg7-Kf6) to sequre a fairly easy draw. Another variation which is simple enough is 25...c5 26.Bxc4 cxd4 27.Bxe6 Rxc2 28.Bxf7+ Kxf7 29.fxe3 Ke6, according to Marin's algorithm (see first chapter of Learn from the Legends) Black should be able to draw easily here because he has only a "-1" (minus one) score, or the score is even "-0" because he has the more active King and the more active Rook (who can swing to the 'a' file soon). 

If this doesn't seem appealing because we are playing only for a draw (and i can understand this, but for some others sequring a fairly easy draw is more appealing!) i would think of playing 23...Rd8 first (because we need now to play ...c5 after Bf1) and improve first our King because we want to avoid the above variation where the Bishop takes on f7 with check. This is one important detail in the position! That's why we say that we "improve" our King by putting it to g7. So, 23...Rd8 24.Kf1 Kg7 25.Ke1 Kf6! (instead of your ...a5 or ...Bd5) and if 26.Bf1 c5! when i am sure that Black is comfortable. Or 26.Kd1 Rb8! when we have a much more improved variation of the 23...Rb8 line because my King has improved while your King's improvement is not as obvious. Of course i could play 25...Rb8!? but i think that ...Kf6 is a bit more usefull than White's Kd1, so before i play the ...Rb8 idea i want to get the maximum of my position. Black certainly can play here for a bit more than a draw if he gets at the 'b' file, even if it is still level.

Again i am answering this question only by instict, which is extremely well developed by analysing this endgame for months! (I am sorry if i blundered somewhere. A more responsible author would check first his line with an engine!) I am reminded now of Tiger's chapter from Grandmaster vs Amateur where he expresses the opinion that the amateur can close the gap if he specialises in certain positions and gets the opportunity to play those positions against a Grandmaster. After spending hours and hours analysing this endgame imagine my pride when i was playing matches against Houdini or Rybka and never (or almost never to he honest) losing! OK, computers may be not the best in these technical positions where they go to endgames which are easily drawn (for example 3 vs 2 Rook endgames) but they still believe that they hold an edge, but anyway it is a nice feeling and i recommend you doing the same after studying this endgame seriously. Then if that appears on the board in a game of yours we'll be armed with great confidence and experience to play it. In a practical game this matters much more than the objective evaluation of the position (and in our case several Grandmaster we have asked confirmed that this endgame is drawn by best play). 

Really thanks for an interesting question! 

I would advise against ...cxd4. Transposing to the Panov is more than Whtie deserves after 4.e3. The ambitious try is 4...Nf6 5.a3 dxc4 6.Bxc4 a6. This is a QGA when 5.a3 is not terribly useful, though not entirely useless either. It's always nice to push for more than just equality as Black, even if White doesn't need to be worse.

I'll happily participate and comment if you start posting analysis on this line. I just cannot analyse it deeply on my own right now because i have more urgent things to finish first.

It is understandable mistake. The idea of playing Bf4-e3-a3 without the N on f3 is something that we are going to see played heavily soon. I predict that also soon we are going to see it defused (by Kramnik, or Gelfand himself probably!) but i cannot but admit that this and the similar Bf4 systems are disturbing for a Black player. Maybe ...b6 is a universal solution? Anyway, this is another subject that doesn't fit with the threads name...

In the "Kasparov on Modern Chess" book i read that Kasparov never lost a game in the Tarrasch Defense (even training ones!) untill the Karpov match. After feeling that playing the Tarrasch against him is a bad strategy he began looking at the Grunfeld with Adorjan. I feel that if the 9...c4 line was more known back then , this was the move he would play as it is much more in line with his style.By the way,  Jacob keeps winning games in Glasgow league and Danish league in the weekends in the same aggresive style! (Keep an eye for future QC newsletters!).

2 things i'd like to say about the recent Chessbase Magazine 146 issue. First of all BPaulsen said that the QGD system i mentioned is analysed by Postny. This was not the system i was reffering to (see Gelfand-Aronian from the latest Tata Steel). Second and most important is that there is an article that deals with the 6.dxc5! line of the Tarrasch Defence. I don't believe that this article can compare with the book because it doesn't mention all of the critical lines (!) but it offers some material on the second best move, the ...Bf5 gambit which is not so bad as a practical try. We rejected it because we couldn't prove compensation, but Lane also thinks that Black is fine there (from a recent chesscafe article of his), as well as ECO of course (i believe that the sources i mentioned just copy ECO's conclusions). Maybe in the future i'll have a second look at it (the ...Bf5 line) and maybe i'll propose Jacob to say a couple of things in a future newsletter. But as we are a live foroum here i can propose to analyse this line (6.dxc5 d4 7.Na4 Bf5) and find out if Black has adequate comp or no.

A certain A Karpov Not that he remotely refuted it of course, but playing against it really did suit his style wonderfully well. 
(and Kasparov did go 0/2 with it the first two times he tried, so an obvious effect on his confidence from that.).

Pionist wrote on 02/10/12 at 16:12:42:


7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5.

Since white hasn't played Bg2 his development is awkward, and he has little better than 9.e3 there, a move he doesn't want to play. Black is fine.

Chessexplained wrote on 02/10/12 at 09:57:44:

Formally speaking ..... 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 d5 could also be called a Tarrasch setup. It isn't very good though,.

Vass wrote on 02/10/12 at 09:26:31:

There is 1.e4 too.
More specifically: the Neo-Catalan 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 (2.g3 intending the KIA is more or less an 1.e4 opening) e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.O-O O-O 6.b3.
Coincidentally this is Delchev's recommendation in his new book on the Réti. He remarks (see the excerpt) that 6.d4 is a standard Catalan, but c5 7.cxd5 exd5 is going to be a normal Tarrasch.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/10/12 at 08:57:16:


GM E. Postny is covering Aronian's line in CBM 146.

...It would be nice if white could get something tangible beyond fleeting pressure.

MartinC wrote on 02/09/12 at 23:44:16:


I think that the system Gelfand played against Aronian in Tata Steel this year is promising despite the final result. I bet we'll see more of this in the near future.

@Gilchrist:

We don't know! As we stated in the book, theory tends to go in mysterious ways. In my opinion though, the 9.Bd2 variation seems more critical. At least from apractical point of view

Someone would probably have to work out how to even slightly annoy QGD players first

Yes!